Stephen Crabb: The new money is welcome, although only £30 million is going into emergency food aid. Given that many commentators have been predicting that the dash for biofuels would result in exactly the sort of negative consequences that we are seeing in world food markets, why is it only now that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is sounding a cautionary note about the use of biofuels. Will he confirm whether he is opposed to or in favour of the continued use of the renewable transport fuels obligations?

John Spellar: We all acknowledge that rising living standards, biofuels and some crop failures have all had an impact on rising prices, but is it not a fact that prices have been pushed up to astronomical levels by rampant speculation in the market. Are not these speculators gambling with people's lives, so what will the international community do about it?

Douglas Alexander: There appears to be conflicting evidence as to whether the immediate challenge that we face is a function of sufficient levels of food but inadequacy of distribution through the market, or whether there is now a global deficit in respect of food production. That is why we need to consider the approach both of the UK Government and of the European Union, while addressing the immediate humanitarian need and raising levels of agricultural production elsewhere in the world, particularly in Africa, where we have seen a decline in agricultural productivity in recent decades, in sharp contrast to countries such as India where we have seen a significant uplift.

Gareth Thomas: We need to do both. We must ensure not only that we continue to help tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but, as the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) indicated, that we do more to tackle a range of other health conditions. We cannot fight AIDS without there being more health workers—more doctors and more nurses—in-country, and we cannot tackle infant and child mortality without there being more health workers in place. We need to do more to tackle the specific problems associated with HIV/AIDS, but we must also ensure that our response to HIV/AIDS helps to tackle those broader health questions.

Simon Hughes: Ever since I have been here, it has been the tradition that when a colleague dies the party of that colleague moves the writ for the by-election or seeks to persuade Parliament to do so. That has a logic to it, and it is a logic from which my colleagues and I do not dissent. Like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), none of us has fully taken in or recovered from the fact that only a couple of weeks ago Gwyneth Dunwoody was here, as robust as ever, and she is now not with us anymore.
	Without seeking to persuade my colleagues to oppose the decision we are about to take, I would like to register my view that we appear to be going down a road of having by-elections much more speedily after deaths of colleagues. There ought to be a convention at least that the funeral takes place first, and clearly there may be a need for talks between the parties to ensure that we return to a slightly more decent, respectful and honourable process. Of course, there is the question of not wanting to leave a constituency unrepresented for too long, but there are practical issues as well as ones of principle. If a by-election is called quickly, although there is no doubt that we will all— [Interruption.]

Douglas Carswell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit members of the public to initiate legislation; and for connected purposes.
	Under the Bill, citizens could trigger debates and votes in Parliament on topics of their choice. Part of the House's legislative agenda would be determined directly by the ordinary citizen, not just MPs and officials. Bills would be introduced on things that mattered to the people, not merely those that excite politicians.
	The Bill is sponsored by Members from across the political spectrum, united in wanting a new kind of progressive politics. We most certainly do need a new form of politics. There is a growing problem with the old Westminster politics. There is a gaping gulf between the political classes in SW1 and the country beyond. My Bill would ensure that Westminster was made more directly accountable to those whom we are supposed to serve. In place of the gentlemen's club rules that are used to determine what is on the legislature's agenda, the people would also get to have a say.
	To initiate a law, a citizen would submit a written proposal to the Clerk in the Table Office. Just as in New Zealand, the Table Office Clerk could determine the precise wording and rule frivolous or fantastic proposals out of order. Proposals would be out of order if, in the opinion of the Clerk and the Speaker, a similar proposal had been put forward within five years. Once a proposal had been approved by the Table Office, citizens would have 12 months to collect signatures.
	In New Zealand, 10 per cent. of voters need to sign up to trigger an initiative. Many western democracies have a right of initiative, including Austria, Italy, Hungary and Lithuania, yet the threshold in such countries has often been set so high that initiatives are rare. High thresholds mean that the popular initiative plays an integral part in the political process in only the United States and Switzerland.
	Rather than having an arbitrary threshold selected, under my Bill those six proposals with the most signatures would qualify. Ensuring that each proposal was, in effect, in competition with other proposals would have advantages. It would encourage proposals that were, by definition, able to command widespread support and would favour measures that were inclusive and unifying, and progressive and uplifting, over and above what was narrow and sectional.
	The half dozen proposals with the most signatures would then be presented to Parliament during the state opening. Having listed those Bills that the Sir Humphrey Appleby types, the remote officials and even, it has to be said, the occasional Minister wanted, Her Majesty would then read out those Bills that the people wanted on the statue book. And what a Queen's Speech that might be! Perhaps people beyond the Westminster village might want to watch and debate the contents of the Gracious Speech—a speech with purpose, as well as pageantry.
	Every couple of months, the Commons would debate and vote on one of the people's Bills. MPs would not be under any obligation to vote for or against them. Perhaps some MPs might not even bother to turn up at all—it has been known—but no longer could politicians avoid the angry gaze of the electorate. No longer could MPs pretend that they did not have the opportunity to confront those issues that matter to the people.
	It might be that the party Whips would allow free votes on the people's Bills—and good luck to those who did not. Yet with or without a free vote, each MP would find themselves more accountable not to their Whips but to their constituents. No longer mere cheerleaders for the current Government or cheerleaders for the next, MPs would have to heed the voice of the voter.
	My Bill would boost voter turnout, too. Empirical evidence from the US shows that those states with the right of initiative have, on average, 5 per cent. higher turnouts than those states without.
	Would a popular initiative open the floodgates to some wildly illiberal populism? No. Restoring capital punishment is simply not a perennial demand among voters in Switzerland. Giving people responsibility makes them responsible. Even if an angry and, some may say, infantilised electorate initially put forward some radical populism, MPs would of course still have the final say.
	Hon. Members may recall that the great and hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) once—some might say rather rashly—promised his private Member's Bill slot to Radio 4 listeners. When they promptly suggested a change in the law on self-defence and burglars, he promptly chose not to take up their case. Under my proposal, MPs forced to confront issues that they would rather not face could do likewise, but at least when politicians decided that they were going to ignore the views of the voter, they could not pretend otherwise.
	A right of initiative would strengthen Parliament and revive our much diminished standing. Far from bypassing or marginalising the Commons, my Bill would give this institution a little backbone. We would still be, in Edmund Burke's memorable phrase, a "deliberative assembly"; it is just that those assembled here would deliberate what counted with the country. This House, under Governments of both parties, has grown less effective at holding those who wield Executive power to account. It should not surprise any of us that fewer people bother voting in elections to determine who sits here.
	Designed in the age of steam trains, our parliamentary system evolved in an era when most people lived and worked in the same parish, and sending a representative off to some remote palace by the Thames was how politics had to be done. Three centuries after the Putney debates, in the age of YouTube, leaving things to politicians is no longer the only way in which politics can be done. In the era of Google, politics is not something that we, the people, must elect them, the politicians, to do on our behalf. Politics can belong to the people between elections, and voters can have a direct say over what MPs debate and vote on.
	I conclude with this thought. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the mainstream political debates of the day hinged on questions of economic decentralisation. The big debates were about whether and how to decentralise control of the economy, trade union reform, making the Bank of England independent, privatisation and the big bang in the City. Each of those issues was a step towards decentralising economic control. The new political questions of our age will hinge on decentralising control, not of the economy but of politics and public services. This Bill is a small step towards that overarching aim. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas Carswell, Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Mark Field, Greg Clark, Stephen Hammond, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Philip Dunne and Mr. David Gauke.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendments. It seems sensible to address this potential loophole now, and we agree that investors, above all, need absolute clarity. We support the proposed changes, but feel that they should be considered against the general concern that not enough is being done to address the issue of storage.
	We all know that about two and a half years ago we nearly ran of gas. I have teased the Minister before about that because it happened within hours of his saying that we were awash with gas. We are aware of that significant challenge two and a half years ago, but still not enough has been done to address the issue, which should be seen in that context. Much has happened since then, with new pipelines coming into action, new liquefied natural gas facilities being built and the storage facilities at Rough, which were half out of action, now operating fully again.
	The situation is nothing like as tight as it was, but we need a more strategic approach to storage, and the Bill is a missed opportunity in that respect. The Minister should be proposing to the House that he will report to Parliament every year on how much storage he believes we will need to address our energy needs in the medium to long term. If he did that, he would also be able to tell the House what steps were being taken to ensure that that need would be met. I regret that such measures are still missing from the Bill, but we are pleased that the potential loophole that we have discussed is being addressed.

Malcolm Wicks: That is also my understanding. Some in Scotland are saying no to nuclear, so the Bill's provisions in respect of these issues do not, sadly, apply to Scotland. Let me make some progress.
	The Government will set new-build operators a fixed unit price for the disposal of their intermediate level waste and spent fuel. That figure will contain a significant risk premium over and above the expected costs of disposing of intermediate level waste and spent fuel. The fixed unit price will be set by the Government on a case-by-case basis when a new-build operator comes forward to construct a new power station. The risk premium added to the fixed unit price will reflect the level of uncertainty in terms of the cost estimates of waste disposal at the time the agreement is entered into.
	For example, the fixed unit price for waste disposal for a power station being constructed in five years' time might well be different from the fixed unit price agreed for a power station being constructed in 10 years' time. The difference arises because, over time, it is likely that understanding of the expected costs of the geological disposal facility and associated activities will increase. Therefore, at the time the agreement is entered into, the Government could be more comfortable attaching a different risk premium to the fixed unit price.

Malcolm Wicks: I wonder whether I might make some progress? Just occasionally, I answer a question in advance. It happened once, 10 years ago, but it could just happen again.
	As I was saying, the figures are based on our initial analysis, and we need to do more work. For example, we anticipate potential benefits to households as a result of better information, leading to reduced energy usage and, as such, lower energy bills and related carbon savings. We also anticipate benefits for energy suppliers and, in the longer term, for distribution networks. However, analysing in detail the full extent of those benefits and quantifying them is extremely difficult and depends on a number of variables that require further investigation. I suppose that shows that we need more than the back of an envelope to do the calculations on—

Steve Webb: I think that the hon. Gentleman's reading is right; new clause 3, which is in the group of amendments that we are considering, and which I hope that the Government will accept, provides that the regulations on smart meters must include a provision allowing a smart meter to be a friend in the cupboard, or on the mantelpiece, that facilitates switching for the consumer. The hon. Gentleman might have heard a lengthy advocacy of that exact principle in Committee, and I am delighted to hear that point reflected back in today's debate; I welcome that.
	Along with others who have spoken, we very much welcome the Government's new clause 8. As the numbering of the new clauses suggests, we had already tabled new clause 1, which tries to do very much the same thing as new clause 8. We are not too worried about the finer points of the drafting differences between the two. As new clause 8 has the Minister's imprimatur, we are happy to defer to him, and not to pursue new clause 1, with one reservation: as the amendment paper shows, when we tabled new clause 1, we included a time scale. That point has already been touched on. The five-year time scale referred to in Government new clause 8 means that there will be five years before the starting whistle is blown, and before things might start to happen. The idea that the clock is ticking is important in the context of climate change. If we are shortly to have binding targets for reaching our 2020 and 2050 climate change goals, another year or two, or five, matters. It is the lack of urgency that disturbs us. Let me read a statement of the Government's policy:
	"Following our consultation on billing and metering, the Government intends to roll forward a package of measures in Great Britain which will change the way in which energy use is communicated to customers."
	One might assume that that came out this week, but in fact it was said a year ago in the energy White Paper of May 2007. The consultation on billing and metering referred to is the previous consultation, and not the most recent consultation or the next consultation. We feel that a line has to be drawn.
	I accept that the Government have a trial under way, and there is an argument for saying that we should let the trial finish. However, the statement of May 2007 was written when the trial had barely begun, so it is hard to argue that we need extra time for the trial to run when, over a year ago, before the Government had any clues about how the trial was going, they were already giving undertakings. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
	As the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said, the document that was circulated today—we appreciate the help given by the Minister's office in that regard—says that, in summary, the Government's plan, in response to the consultation, is
	"to complete further economic assessment work and consultation to finalise policy position".
	One wonders what the Government are waiting for. What do they think that they will find out after another six or nine months of dithering that they could not find out in the previous 12 months of dithering? What is the delay? The conclusion of the response to the consultation says:
	"Given the complexity of the issues and the number of variables involved, the Government wishes to discuss further...We have therefore published...a consultation impact assessment"—
	that is a new one to me—
	"on a roll out...and invite comments".
	I wonder whether there will be a Government response to the consultation impact assessment, which was the Government's response to the consultation, which followed another consultation. Perhaps then there will be a period of public engagement, reflection and consideration. Can we not just get on with it?
	I have been trying to work out why the Government do not want to get on with it, and whether the Minister has caught the ditheritis that comes from the top of Government. I looked back to our deliberations in Committee on 11 March, which was the last time that I challenged the Minister to get on with it. He intervened on me to ask, apropos of smart meters,
	"Does he not recognise that by rushing the process"—
	rushing? Chance would be a fine thing—
	"there is a danger that we could to install the wrong technology"? ——[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2008; c. 581.]
	I do not know whether the Minister has ever bought a computer; I sense that he may never have done so. There is always a danger of buying the wrong technology, and that something better will come round the corner.
	Surely there are plenty of examples of working technology out there. It is not staggeringly new. We have a rough idea of how it would all work. The fact that the Government have had a trial of smart meters going for well over a year suggests that it is not cutting edge, alien technology. It is in use in other countries as well, so the technology is not—

Steve Webb: The companies are certainly not paying a fair share at present, so that is an interesting suggestion.
	We have seen the potential of smart meters for load shifting and for alleviating fuel poverty. The climate change potential through CO2 savings has been mentioned, although it is possible to overstate those savings. There is some evidence that there is a one-off shift, but it is slightly less clear that the effect is ongoing. Whatever sort of smart metering we have, we clearly need a visual display that is compatible with a smart meter, rather than a clip-on device, so that people have the best possible and most accessible information about their consumption and about the CO2 emissions to encourage them to think harder about cutting back.
	I have a killer fourth point, which I cannot read. I shall come back to it.

Malcolm Wicks: I assume that if there are net costs, as I believe there will be, they will be passed on to the consumer. It may not be public spending, but at a time of rising energy costs we must have regard to that. I am supporter of smart meters and I predict that they will be rolled out for householders, but we need to refine the costs and see what the difference is between ourselves and industry on those cost estimates. Many of the advantages are, in a sense, hypotheses. We hope behaviour will follow those, but we must ground it in some estimate of net costs.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend missed my resolution not to be mean to the Liberal Democrats today. I was slightly mean earlier, but I think that I got away with it.
	We are not aware of approaches or technologies that would allow for quite the sort of approach suggested, but I will make further inquiries. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) wondered why, technically, it could not be possible. I wondered at one stage whether it could mean that at one time we all got our electricity from one company and half an hour later we got it from another company. We have heard about different niche markets, but I am not sure what the market implications of that might be. However, it is an interesting idea and I will consider it further.
	Hon. Members have talked about our approach, and I have noticed that "dithering" seems to be a favourite word in the Opposition's political vocabulary. I do not recognise that. Since the energy White Paper, we have undertaken a consultation and published a significant body of impact assessment work. We have tabled an amendment to the Bill, which we are discussing, and we have already announced our intention to move forward for medium-sized businesses. I make no apology for considering the cost-effectiveness of the measure as well as the benefits. I therefore hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the Government new clause and will not press theirs to a vote.
	New clause 16, in the name of the hon. Member for Wealden, seeks to increase transparency for consumers by requiring energy suppliers to specify on a consumer's bill the amount of carbon dioxide that has been emitted in the production of the energy attributed to that bill. As the problem of climate change is now a global one, we all—consumers, business and Government—have a role to play. Indeed, much of today's debate is about how we enable the citizen to become more active in tackling global warming; it is a feature of the next debate, too. A key element of our strategy to tackle climate change is promoting energy efficiency and crucially, as part of that, engaging the individual. Important examples of the Government's work are the "Act on CO2" campaign by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the fact that two thirds of the estimated savings in the 2007 energy White Paper were as a result of energy efficiency measures. However, we must continue to take action to help consumers to understand the choices that they can make about using cleaner energy and reducing the energy they use.
	I support the notions behind new clause 16, but I shall resist it because it would duplicate existing statutory requirements that achieve the same outcome. It might be helpful if we consider this in two parts—electricity and gas—as they are covered by different statutory requirements. Looking first at electricity, in transposing the electricity directive 2003/54/EC the Government laid the Electricity (Fuel Mix Disclosure) Regulations 2005. I am sure that hon. Members remember those quite intimately. Those regulations inserted a new condition into electricity supply licences requiring suppliers to provide information on or with the consumer's energy bill, and in promotional materials, about the environmental impact of the electricity supplied in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. I hope that hon. Members will therefore accept that the requirement for suppliers to provide the specified information in relation to electricity is already accounted for.
	Turning to carbon dioxide emissions from gas, the issue is somewhat different. Carbon emissions from electricity supplied should result in greater awareness of the relative carbon intensity of different generating technologies, which in turn might potentially incentivise switching among consumers. However, information on carbon emissions from gas supplied would not have the same effect, because gas supplied will have the same carbon emissions regardless of who supplies it—that is, 0.185 kg of CO2 per kilowatt hour of gas consumed. The information could incentivise more efficient use of energy by consumers. However, there is already a statutory requirement that has the same effect—the requirement for energy suppliers to provide historical information on consumers' bills to help them to understand how much energy they have used. Since we published the energy White Paper last year, the six major energy suppliers have included historical energy usage data on all consumers' bills. That shows consumers, in graphical form, the amount of energy that they have used compared with the same period in the previous year—something that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) might study at his leisure.
	I am pleased to confirm to the House that having laid the Electricity and Gas (Billing) Regulations 2008 before Parliament earlier this year, we are in the process of cementing that voluntary arrangement in statute. Provisions in those regulations, alongside requirements under the 2005 regulations, mean that I am confident that we have the right statutory requirements on suppliers to enable increased consumer awareness and to incentivise action at an individual level.
	Having said that, I listened with great care to the case put again by the hon. Member for Wealden following our discussions in Committee. I have thought through the issues and, notwithstanding my confidence in what I have just said, I wonder whether we should be doing more. I do not think that we need to do more in the Bill, but I would like to discuss these issues with the supply companies to see whether the material that we get in our bills deals with the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised so well. I rather suspect that we can go further in a cost-effective way, not by trying to itemise CO2 for every constituency, but by sending the consumer general material about carbon emissions, and perhaps reminding them that, as we tackle carbon emissions, extra costs will be incurred through such things as the renewables obligation.
	Given what I have said, I am not sure that we are in the right place. We could go further in voluntary agreements, and we will take into account the way in which the hon. Member for Wealden has spoken to his new clause, as I am sure will the supply companies. Having said that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider not pressing the motion, which we have discussed thoroughly, to a Division.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Alan Simpson: The Minister for Energy just made the point that we want to empower citizens to take a more active lead in addressing the challenge of climate change and the shift to renewable energy systems. In many ways, new clause 4 specifically addresses that challenge. Internationally, it is arguable that the mechanism it deals with is by far the most effective one for engaging citizens and delivering a dynamic sense of change.
	In presenting this new clause, I begin by giving credit to those who have given enormous support, in the House and outside, to the principle behind it and the commitments we are asking the House to enter into today. There is an astonishing array of supporters of the new clause, including the House Builders Federation, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Federation of Master Builders, the National Farmers Union, the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Trades Union Congress, Greenpeace, the Country Land and Business Association, the UK Green Building Council, Energywatch, the Energy Saving Trust, the Co-op Group—which has clad its own headquarters in solar panels—Sharp UK, Solarcentury, National Energy Action, the Solar Trade Association, the Ground Source Heat Pumps Association, and interestingly enough, Lily Allen and The Premises studios.
	In these days of celebrity, it almost becomes obligatory to have a celebrity on board when arguing a worthy cause, but Lily Allen has a fair claim to be recognised as part of that list. She and the company that she is part of in The Premises studios in Hackney, London, have installed an array of about 18 solar panels on the roof—similar to the array on my home—which generate the electricity that powers the studios. I know that she has written to all of my parliamentary colleagues to say that such action should not just be the prerogative of those in a position to do it as a matter of principle. The Government should reach out actively to promote it in order to make citizens the drivers of dynamic change.
	In this House, we have to ask how we begin to bridge the gap between UK undertakings and where we need to be by 2020, and how we bridge the gap between where the UK is now, and the position of many of our international comparator countries. The international picture is this: almost 50 countries have introduced some sort of feed-in tariff legislation. As a result, most of those countries are well ahead of the UK in delivering a proportion of energy from renewable sources. The UK currently delivers about 2 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources. According to the aspirations that have been teased out from the Bill, it is clear that, at best, the UK will reach a position where it might be delivering 5 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. We have entered into an EU commitment to deliver 15 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources by that time. It is quite clear, therefore, that we will need a quantum shift in the policy framework to allow the UK to deliver 15 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Alan Simpson: It is an embarrassment, and those who have read the Lily Allen letter will recall that it is described as a "national disgrace". However, we need to remember that 10 years ago, Germany started from a similar position and already, this year, it has exceeded its 2010 targets. It now delivers more than 14 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources, and it has made a step-change transition within the same sort of period that we will have to make one. None of those achievements is outside our reach; the question is whether the achievements are outside our vision. Do we have the political will to make the shift?

Alan Simpson: I discussed the matter in last year's Budget debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) when he was a Treasury Minister, and it was suggested that the scheme was contentious and unpopular in Germany. I asked the German Government whether that was the case and they said that it was not unpopular with the public or the political parties but that there had been some trouble with the energy companies. In the previous year, the federal Government or municipal government had to take energy companies to court on approximately 150 occasions for failure to comply with the law. On each occasion, the public won and the energy companies lost. Energy company interests were the most contentious part of the programme. That is a lesson for us in the UK. We have found ourselves too deeply enmeshed in the large-scale corporate interests of a feeding system for the big energy companies, which has not necessarily fed the momentum for change to renewable energy systems throughout the UK.
	Fortunately, none of the challenges in Germany about state aid and market distortion was upheld by the courts. The European Court ruled that the feed-in tariff system constituted a perfectly legitimate way to create a dynamic market with a different competitor base. I believe that we must make that intellectual shift.
	However, the debate goes beyond traditional terms. The focus has mainly been on electricity generation. Friends of the Earth, the Renewable Energy Association and other non-governmental organisations put a wonderful advert in the national newspapers last week. It tried to capture the contrasts between the UK and Germany through a different perception of our traditional Anglo-German rivalry. It depicted a mythical Euro solar league, with a shoot-out. There was a goal with lots of footballs in the back, an England goalkeeper in a state of despair and a scoreboard that read, "Germany 200, England 1". That is the ratio—200:1—of installed solar generating capacity between the two countries.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, there was mention of 1966.
	If we widen the focus, the comparisons are even starker. We do just as badly in other aspects of the renewable energy sectors. By the end of 2007, the UK had installed approximately 80,000 solar thermal energy units; in contrast, Germany had more than 1 million. By the end of 2007, the UK had installed approximately 1,000 heat pumps, while Germany installed 44,000 heat pumps in 2006 alone. The contrast in solar photovoltaic energy is between around 2,500 solar roofs in this country and 300,000 in Germany. The UK has 150 wood pellet boilers and Germany has 70,000, while the UK has 17 biogas plants and Germany has 3,800. All that has happened relatively recently, in the past three to four years.
	I want to widen the focus of the debate from just electricity to what we do about renewable heat and renewable biogas. We had a public meeting on that last night. Some interest was generated when it was announced that BERR had a team on heat.  [ Laughter. ] Eyes watered and people made discreet enquiries about what exactly that meant. That team is looking into the issue.
	Let me address the practicalities of what is already done through feed-in tariff regulations in Germany in those 3,800 biogas plants. Essentially, in our system in the UK, the only way someone trying to reclaim methane from waste—whether it be food, farm or animal waste, or sewage—can receive any assistance or recognition is if the waste is converted into energy at the plant. That means that the producers of the energy are left with heat at a remote location and huge infrastructure costs in transmitting heat back into the towns or cities where the waste came from.
	The Germans said, "Why waste all that effort in creating the ducting for heat? Why don't we just put it back into the system as gas and allow people to take the credit at the point at which they convert the gas back into energy?" The Germans allow that process to take place at combined heat and power plants that are located in the communities that provide the waste in the first place.
	The scope for that process is vast. To put it in context, half the food currently produced in the UK ends up as food waste. A study conducted in Germany at the end of last year calculated that if, at the European level, we used food, farm and animal waste, and perhaps even sewage, for the production of biomethane that we then fed back into our gas systems, by 2020 the entire EU could be economically non-dependent on Russian gas. That is the scale of what is possible. However, we have to make the shift, by changing the rules in order to provide the incentives that will at least allow that to happen.
	At a time when Centrica is already telling us that it will not be able to control future gas prices, because we now have to buy gas on an international market, which drives prices up, German companies can offer their customers gas prices that will not rise other than by the retail prices index, because that gas is being generated from their waste.
	It has also been pointed out that two forms of waste come out of the biogas production process. One is a solid fuel waste, which is a farm-grade fertiliser, which the companies are supplying back to the farms. Again, we should bear in mind that fertiliser prices doubled for UK farmers last year alone. The ability to supply fertiliser back to our farmers has an economic virtue in itself. The second form of waste is a liquid waste, which turns out to be a biofuel. The Germans are using that biofuel to drive the vehicles to collect the waste from people's houses in the first place.
	That is the sort of virtuous circle that is unleashed as a result of making that shift. The sense of empowerment in the process is driven by that community involvement. Hermann Scheer made an additional point, to which the Minister and the Treasury ought to show some sensitivity. More than 90 per cent. of investment in the renewables process in Germany comes from individuals, communities, public authorities and the business sector. Why? Because they can all be stakeholders in the process and because they receive payments from it.
	We have locked ourselves into a system in which those who are willing to go down that path refuse to do so without Government subsidy. However, the Germans and almost 50 other countries are showing that it is possible to make the change in a completely different way—one that makes little or no impact on the Exchequer and delivers huge savings and growth in the economy as a whole.

Hugo Swire: Someone who erected four 10-m high wind turbines at a capital cost of £35,000 could put 16,000 kW back into the grid and receive an annual payback of £500 a year. There is no incentive inherent in that. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we genuinely want everyone to attempt to produce energy from renewable sources, we must move towards the German, or continental, model and provide incentives? Otherwise people will simply give up.

Alan Whitehead: Moving as rapidly as we would want from the position that the UK was in, for particular reasons relating to the source of its energy supplies and the choices that it made historically about those sources—and therefore the mechanism by which those supplies would be delivered—to where we know we have to get to in the near future with regard to the proportion of energy supply that comes from renewables sources, has been a considerable challenge, and will remain so. It is true that the planning environment has not helped in that process. The Planning Bill will address some of the issues of larger-scale renewable power stations and the Marine Bill, which will be introduced later this year, will provide a single permission regime for offshore generation. So things are changing, and so will the circumstances in which large-scale renewable sources operate.
	It is true that if we take all the investment proposals for both onshore and offshore installations that are in the pipeline, that are consented but awaiting build, or that have everything in place but no date yet for connection, the total amount of electricity generation represented is getting on towards filling the gap in power supply that we need to fill over the next few years. That represents a substantial change in large-scale electricity supply.
	There are therefore several different factors affecting the development of large-scale renewable installations, one of which is the nature of the incentive for investment in the first place. The renewables obligation has generally worked relatively well to bring those investment decisions forward. However, the renewables obligation has barely touched microgeneration. As I have demonstrated, it is not a particular incentive for those who are developing microgeneration. A feed-in tariff would be a much better incentive in that area. The issue that we would then have to address, which is central to my concerns, is that we are not in a position to build incentives on a tabula rasa. We have a series of existing arrangements for developing power and the importation of renewable electricity that are based on the renewables obligation. If we chucked all those arrangements out of the window and went for a universal feed-in tariff tomorrow, that would fundamentally disrupt a number of the investment decisions on larger scale electricity generation. In fact, large-scale electricity generation would be put in reverse.
	It is important not only to get the feed-in tariff right, but to get the tariff's application right. If we are thinking along the lines of introducing such a tariff, it is important to get its nature right, particularly as regards microgeneration. Should a feed-in tariff be based on the total production undertaken by a microgenerator? Should it be a net tariff based on what the microgenerator exports? Should it be an estimated tariff as a proportion of the total invested? A number of different instruments could be used depending on what is decided.
	The way in which the feed-in tariff works in Germany has led to a few perverse consequences, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South that it has been immensely positive in terms of drawing through microgeneration. However, those who install solar photovoltaic panels export all the electricity generated from those panels into the grid, take a feed-in tariff for that and then buy all their domestic electricity from the grid. The perverse consequence of that is the lack of interchange between what those people produce from the panels on their roof and what they consume in their houses.
	It seems to me that one of the purposes of engaging in the development of microgeneration, particularly microgeneration that is locally sourced and distributed, is that there should be a relationship between the electricity consumed in the house and that produced by the roof panels. If the system does not connect the two, part of the purpose of such microgeneration is missed. That might be an accidental consequence, but it results from the design and operation of the feed-in tariff.
	It is important that we get any feed-in tariff right, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South that such a tariff is almost inevitable. It seems that there is no better way to move microgeneration to the next phase of implementation than some form of feed-in tariff. However, we need to consider different incentives, for example on renewable heat and gas, and to be clear about how they apply.
	After I moved my clause in Committee, I was encouraged to hear my hon. Friend the Minister suggest that the idea of a microgeneration feed-in tariff in particular would be one of the subjects of a review this summer. It is fair to say that he has developed that policy since the Committee sat. The question for the House, as it was in Committee, is whether the amendment or a similar one should be left on the table or whether we should go for a vote. In order to ensure that we get things right and undertake the consultation over this summer that was suggested by my hon. Friend, the amendment should remain on the table—it should not be withdrawn and never heard of again. There should be an understanding that we will have to go in this direction, so it is important that we get that direction right, that the review is completed quickly and that the mechanism for getting microgeneration right in the UK is implemented.
	I hope that the review will be the subject of a further energy Bill next year, as has been widely suggested. That Bill should deal with questions such as how we obligate and implement action on renewable heat and make sure that the present escape into the air of heat that has no energy output is covered by an obligation system. Energy companies should be obliged to do something with that heat, or suffer a penalty for not doing so.

Dai Havard: I will not detain the House long. I have been struck by the fact that as I am opposed to nuclear power being developed, I face the discipline of having to consider all the other forms of energy that might make up an efficient energy mix in future. I have considered what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) said about feed-in tariffs; he explained better than I could that they are efficient, help to ensure security of supply, and help to produce a plurality in the energy market that would otherwise not be there.
	I am also struck by the idea that if we are not careful we will construct a process that is very much in the hands of big power, whether that is nuclear power or any of the array of providers that will be in place. The process that my hon. Friend outlined involves a democratisation of the argument; I wish that he had said a bit more about that. New clause 4 would bring local people into the process in a different way, and would produce a plurality in the market that could generate efficiency. To people who are interested in competition, I add that it would create greater, better and efficient competition.
	Some of my hon. Friends are concerned about how the measures fit with the other obligations. As I understand it, new clause 4 says, "Go and consider the issue for 12 months, and come up with mechanisms that produce not conflict but co-operation and collaboration that results in the best of both worlds." I would have thought that the term, "a third way", might have been tempting for some Labour Members. The new clause also does other things: it imposes a discipline on us to ensure that what I have outlined happens. I say to my hon. Friends that the review in the summer and the other measures mentioned are necessary—in fact, they should happen in any event; they are just matters of efficiency—but if the new clause is added to the Bill, it will provide the discipline that will ensure that things happen in a structured way. It will give the House the capacity to understand, monitor and control the process, so that it comes back to us.
	Let me reinforce the point that the new clause is one way of ensuring that, in future, individuals can understand where they are, in terms of the consumption, supply and generation of electricity, because it allows communities to get involved, as well as individuals. It allows collective capacity; it is not just about an individual putting a windmill on their roof. The measure is about communities, planning, consent, and co-operation. To me, the democracy argument is as important as the efficiency argument.

Michael Weir: I support new clause 4, which was so ably introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He said more about it than I could ever say, so I shall move on to my amendment No. 1, which is much more technical and deals with the interaction between research and development grants and renewables obligation certificates for certain projects.
	There is a concern that efforts to avoid giving projects double help may put in doubt the future of some projects. That was suggested to me by those who were involved in the DOWNVInD programme, which I am told is one of the largest renewable energy research and technology development programmes in Europe. The project is funded by Talisman Energy and Scottish and Southern Energy, with significant contributions in kind from many of its 18 other participants from seven EU countries.
	I understand that in addition to private capital, the project received research funding from the European Commission's sixth framework research and technology development programme, the then Department of Trade and Industry's new and renewable energy programme, and the Scottish Government's science and technology development programme. The public sector support for the project was predicated on the observation that offshore wind was an emerging technology confined to shallow near-shore waters.
	The DOWNVInD programme was essential to move the offshore wind technology to deeper waters more distant from shore, and was obviously looking to the future of offshore wind. That was noted in the then DTI's grant offer letter, which stated that
	"the project is high risk, and does present an opportunity to better understand the economic and technical prospects for offshore deepwater windfarms".
	The problem is that, because of the way the subsections that I am seeking to delete from the Bill are written, as the project has received public sector grants, it might not be able to take up the new banded ROCs. Special arrangements will apply to projects in receipt of capital grants, but that would mean that if projects qualified for up-banding, they would have pay back some of the research grant, as proposed new section 32E(5)(a) sets out:
	"if the grant or any part of it has been paid, to repay to the Secretary of State the whole or a specified part of the grant or part before the repayment date".
	The result of that would be that projects that received ROCs would have to repay grants.
	I am told that the proposal was originally aimed at post-demonstration projects in receipt of capital grant, such as the round 1 offshore wind projects. However, the wording means that projects such as DOWNVInD would become subject to the regulations and would no longer be able to get ROCs. They would never be able to move beyond the demonstration stage because they would be unable to produce energy and get the benefit of ROCs.

David Heath: I want to speak about new clause 11, which deals with micro hydro generation. Before doing so, let me express my enthusiastic support for the new clause and the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). If the new clause were accepted, it would do some of what I am trying to achieve in stimulating the growth of micro hydro generation.
	It is frustrating that we appear to spend so much time in this country hugging ourselves, congratulating ourselves and telling ourselves how wonderfully wise, green and environmentally friendly we are and that we are world beaters, when much of the outside world passes us by and gets ahead of us through mechanisms that are available to us if only we would use them. I say to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that I see no purpose in agreeing with an amendment and then letting it lie on the table. It should not lie on the table; it should be activated. The Minister would be advised to accept the new clause today.
	I do not pretend that micro hydro generation is the answer to all our renewable energy problems—of course it is not. It is a small part of the portfolio of renewables that we need. Patently, not everybody has a house on a river with a mill. Micro hydro generation will not therefore be a huge contributor, but it is part of the process. I am a great believer in decentralisation and finding small solutions and putting them together to make a big difference.
	Micro hydro generation represents a small but significant part of the renewables market. I had the great pleasure of helping to open a new facility in my constituency last year. Tellisford mill is an old water mill in a beautiful place. Anthony Battersby and his wife Rachel have done a wonderful job in investing in a new water turbine in the mill. They not only provide energy from a renewable source but are socially and environmentally aware in being good neighbours. The mill is not like some renewable energy sources, with which people have a problem. We are considering an old mill, which is being used for the same purpose for which it was used 200 years ago, and that is good. It produces renewable energy for 65 houses, which is good news.
	The Mendip Power Group has a series of mills along the River Frome. When they are fully operational, they will provide 2,100 MWh, which is a significant contribution. The Mendip Power Group is one of three such groups in my immediate area. We also have the South Somerset Hydropower Group and the Stour and Vale Hydro Group, which is based in Dorset. Between Somerset and Dorset, more than 100 water turbines provide renewable energy. However, everyone involved in the process says that the difficulty of getting past the existing bureaucracy is such a disincentive that they often feel as though they are banging their heads against a brick wall. I want to illustrate and address those frustrations in my remarks.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. A sensible community would manage a whole river basin in a much more sustainable way than we do now. We are trying to do that in Somerset and some other parts of the country, but that means taking energy from the river, using appropriate storage of water to prevent flooding and using the entire ecosystem in a water basin in the most effective way, so the hon. Gentleman is right.
	What are the current difficulties? The Minister knows what they are, because I have written to him, as have those who operate the mills, who have also had meetings with his Department and tried to explain the issues. The principal issue is the definition of microgeneration for hydro power. We have mixed definitions of the maximum allowable in microgeneration, but the most effective one, including in respect of the renewables obligation certificate, is a maximum of 50 kW. However, a great number of water turbines generate between 50 kW and 100 kW. I accept that 50 kW is a perfectly viable maximum for many renewable sources; one would need quite a large photovoltaic array on top of one's house to reach 50 kW. However, that is not a large figure for a water turbine. Indeed, at its best, the technology used in the new water turbines generally produces more than 50 kW.
	We conducted a survey of the 100 or so mill installations that I have mentioned in Somerset and Dorset. That survey could be taken as proving the Government's point. The majority of those mills—89 of them—generated less than 50 kW and only 13 generated more. However, those 13 generated more electricity than the other 89 put together. If we are interested in getting the maximum yield of renewable electricity, the 50 kW cut-off is absurd.
	Because 50 kW is the cut-off for the double ROC, those who have installed such facilities or who intend to do so have a strange decision: either they run their installation at less than full capacity, in order to keep within the double ROC maximum, or they take a financial loss. What sort of policy nonsense is it to have renewable capacity, but run it at less than full capacity? There is of course an extra financial loss, because the 50 kW maximum is also used for the income tax exemption, so there is a double hit.
	The other financial difficulty that many people face concerns the grid connection, which has already been mentioned. I am told that a 400 m connection can cost £16,500. That is a lot of money on top of the initial capital outlay already required. Oddly enough, mills are usually on rivers and are not normally very close to communities; therefore, there is an inherent cost in providing the infrastructure required to run a renewable installation.
	The second issue that I want to raise is the licensing regime. It seems that the Environment Agency has never talked to the energy Department, in whatever form it has taken, about what is needed. If one tries to get a water abstraction licence for one's water mill, one might be told that one needs an abstraction licence, an impoundment licence or a transfer licence—one might even be told to get all three—all that for water that never leaves the river. It goes into a leat, is used by the turbine and is returned to the river. It is nonsense to call that an abstraction, yet all those licences are obligations, dealt with by the Environment Agency, that have to be paid for. One has to apply for them and go through all the bureaucracy that comes with that.
	There is no consistency in the way that the system is applied. I have two mills in my constituency, one of which I have mentioned. Tellisford has an impoundment licence, while Stowford, which is a little further down the stream, has an abstraction licence. The mills do the same thing, but the Environment Agency is determined that they need different licences, whereas another mill on the same river, Lullington, needs all three licences. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of the Government to devise a single licensing regime for micro hydro generation that obviates what I describe, particularly given that water is not being abstracted.
	Not only does one need a licence, but one has to report daily on one's abstraction. No water is leaving the watercourse, but one still has to report to the Environment Agency every day about how much water one has abstracted from the stream into one's leat, and how much one has passed back from the leat into the river. It is the same amount on either side. That is also nonsense. Each year, from every mill, 365 flow readings go to the Environment Agency, which I doubt is desperate for more work, but that achieves nothing because the same water is going in and out.
	Another issue that the Environment Agency is very concerned about is reserved flow, but for all the reasons that I have given, there is no consequence from a mill stream taking water into a loop and then feeding it back into the main watercourse. The stream has probably done that for hundreds of years. That is not a new thing; it was there before the water turbine and will be there after it, but the Environment Agency thinks it an important thing to measure. Interestingly, an Environment Agency officer said to Mr. Battersby, who gave me this information:
	"We are very good at measuring change, but absolute rubbish at deciding if it matters or not."
	That sums up the regime in which those officers are working.
	The final subject that I want to talk about is fish. I do not want to be unkind to fish. They are very important, and I do not want to do anything that would be detrimental to the safety or health of the various species. The Environment Agency considers water turbines to be a major hazard to fish, even in a stream that has no migrating species. I understand the need to put facilities in a stream along which salmon or trout migrate and need a passage through a weir or need to bypass a turbine, but not if there are no migrating species. If the weir has been there for hundreds of years, the fish, if they have any species memory, will presumably know that it is there by now, and will use the main river course instead, rather than bump into the weir and hurt their snouts. That is not a serious issue. Why, then, does the Environment Agency expand it to become a major obstacle to the production of energy from this source?
	I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I want the Minister to understand that many people are desperate to invest in renewable energy and they have the means to do so in a way that is socially and environmentally responsible. They can make a real contribution—not the biggest contribution in the world, but a real contribution nevertheless—to providing energy into the system. Obstacles and impediments are in their way, which could be avoided if only the Department and the Environment Agency would take these concerns seriously.
	I do not intend to press my new clause to a Division, but rather like that put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, mine provides a year for the Government to get their house in order and provide the necessary changes to regulation in order to accomplish what we all want. I hope that the Minister will not tell me just what is technically wrong with the new clause. I am sure that he can find something wrong with it, but that is not the point. My intention was to stimulate debate about one small sector of renewable energy that we could encourage to a much greater extent if we avoided the obstacles and made the fiscal arrangements more appropriate than they are now.
	I would love it if the Minister were to stand up and declare that he supports the feed-in tariff proposal, and if he will not, I hope that the House will persuade him to change his mind. In the same breath, I hope that he will also look seriously at the issues in my new clause, and put in the necessary changes in order to stimulate this small but important sector of microgeneration.

Malcolm Wicks: This group of amendments covers a wide range of renewables issues, so I hope the House will forgive me if I am on my feet for some time trying to answer all the points raised. I would like to try to do justice to them and address as many of them as possible. I would like first to deal with the renewables obligation-related amending provisions; secondly, with issues related to transmission; thirdly, with the Government's reporting on energy; and, finally, with the issue of feed-in tariffs.
	The intention behind new clause 11 is, as we have just heard, to encourage the deployment of micro-hydro generation. It proposes exempting micro-hydro installations from the licensing requirements set out by the Environment Agency. Those requirements were put in place for the purpose of protecting our rivers and wildlife. However, there is always a balance to be struck and I am aware of the micro-hydro sector's concerns around the burdens that the regulations place on it. Those impacts are not always easy to assess, which is why I believe it is right to pursue a route to better co-operation between the industry and the regulator, rather than to disapply regulatory protections.
	My officials are aware of the issue and they are keen to find a way forward, if possible, with the Environment Agency. For example, my Department has funded a project between the industry and the Environment Agency to develop a good practice guide on the environmental impact of micro-hydro schemes.
	The new clause also proposes changes to the treatment of micro-hydro under the renewables obligation. The detail of how it is implemented is already set out in the Renewables Obligation Order 2006, which takes account of relevant differences between technologies, including hydro-generation. I believe it would be inappropriate—not to mention increasingly complex—for micro-generators to have separate regulations, as seems to be suggested, dealing just with hydro-microgeneration for the purposes of the renewables obligation.
	Specifically on the definition of hydro-microgeneration, the bands for all technologies will be set out in the order and there is no need for either separate secondary legislation or a definition in primary legislation to deal with the issue. All the changes to the order, including the thresholds for support levels, will be subject to statutory consultation before introduction. My officials have met representatives of the industry to discuss these issues and have committed to consider them further in the light of a study that the British Hydro Association is carrying out on the scope for micro-hydro, so I believe that the right place for the industry and others to voice their concerns is as part of that consultation and not through this Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: If my hon. Friend is not going to talk about smaller-scale generation, I will give way to him.

Elliot Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Many of us accept that there has been consistency in Germany about the feed-in tariff, and that we have been consistent about ROs, but all sorts of new micro technologies are being developed and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has made a persuasive case about them. The Minister is about to deal with those new micro- technologies, but is he prepared to look at different ways to incentivise that new sector that would not disturb the consistency that he has described?

Brian Iddon: The inquiry looked at the possible links between childhood leukaemia and EMF from the high-voltage power lines. The passage of the Energy Bill has provided the Government with an ideal opportunity to implement what we regard as precautionary measures to protect children's health. The Electricity Act 1989 provides the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, which is Ofgem's governing body, with a duty to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity. However, the Act specifies that that duty does not apply to applications for high-voltage overhead power lines. Subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause would remove that exemption.
	Electricity companies are subject to strict regulation, which is dominated by pricing factors. They will give only as much consideration to this issue as they are legally obliged to. A statutory responsibility to consider public health when installing new overhead power lines would allow the electricity companies to take precautionary measures and allay the concerns about passing on costs to the consumer. A statutory responsibility might also encourage creative solutions from the private sector concerning ways to reduce and prevent EMF exposure, or even industry voluntary codes on prudent avoidance, which would minimise cost to industry and electricity consumers. The other subsections of the new clause would give the Minister other powers allowing him to protect the public health of young children who live in close proximity to high-voltage power lines.
	The new clause would mandate the electricity transmission companies to put their new power lines as far away from buildings in which people live or work as possible. Given that a new power line will be built across Scotland shortly and that a major new power line will bring transmission from Scotland to the north of England, the new clause is necessary.
	In view of the limited time available, I hope that the Government will give the matter further consideration, if not today, because of lack of time, in the other place.
	 It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker  put  forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair , pursuant to Order [22 January.]
	 Question, That the clause be read a Second time , put and negatived.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith  the  Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Malcolm Wicks: No, I do not. However, I agree with the slightly different proposition that the UK is among a small group of lead nations on CCS. If we consider those that take the matter seriously and are pursuing demonstration projects, we cannot include many countries. With Norway and one or two others, we are a lead nation. I made that point earlier when quarrelling with the idea that the German grass is necessarily greener. I am proud that the UK will spend considerable amounts of public money demonstrating the application of CCS. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record.
	I am especially pleased that we have been able to extend the provisions on CCS to Scotland. That will ensure a single UK-wide regime for CCS, giving industry greater confidence and clarity, supporting investment in that vital new technology.
	On renewables, our first priority must be, through the Bill, to maximise the renewables obligation's effectiveness. The Bill's reforms to the RO will help promote more rapid deployment of a wider range of renewable technologies, making it 30 per cent. more efficient in terms of renewables deployment from 2009 to 2015.
	Although microgeneration is not on the face of the Bill, we have had a useful debate about it. I repeat our commitment that, as part of the renewable energy strategy, we will consider mechanisms to incentivise microgeneration further, including feed-in tariffs.
	Underpinning our ambitions for greater levels of renewable electricity, the Bill will ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to transmit offshore renewable electricity to the onshore grid. This major area of work will continue after the passage of the Bill. In the short term, however, the Bill will add to existing powers to ensure that Ofgem can run cost-effective and efficient competitive tender exercises for offshore transmission licences. Introducing competition will help to avoid unnecessary delays and costs to offshore renewables projects, ultimately reducing risks and supporting investment.
	There has been significant debate about the measures in the Bill that cover the decommissioning of energy installations, in particular those relating to new nuclear power. Although one of the objectives of our energy strategy is to support investment, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that adequate protections are in place to ensure that the environment is protected and that the risk of costs falling to the Government is minimised. The Bill strengthens the existing decommissioning regime for both offshore renewables and oil and gas installations. The amendment that the Government have made to that area of the Bill will ensure that our legislation supports an active oil and gas sector in the UK continental shelf.
	We have always been clear that developers and operators of new nuclear power, not the Government, must meet the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management and disposal costs. The Bill provides the new legislative framework to ensure that all operators have in place a funded waste and decommissioning programme before operation of a power station commences. It will be a criminal offence to operate new nuclear power stations without an approved programme in place. To ensure that potential investors fully understand their liabilities, the Government have committed to establishing a fixed price for the disposal of new nuclear waste, which will be based on expected costs, which will include a significant risk premium.

Alan Duncan: Indeed it is, but it is that minority stakeholding that we would like to know more about, because the implementation of the Bill may go one way or another depending on what happens to the commercial infrastructure in which it will have to work. About that, however, we hear nothing from the Secretary of State. Indeed, I wrote to him during the recess, requesting an urgent clarification of the Government's position before a sale goes through in order to avoid having to endure the embarrassment and confusion of a messy post-mortem thereafter, but I am afraid that the response was bland and unhelpful. We still await a clear public statement of the Government's principles on this vitally important commercial deal, which will determine the shape of electricity generation in the nuclear sector in the UK for the next 50 or even 100 years.
	Neither have we heard a whisper from the Department on the tendering of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's contracts for legacy waste and its clean-up, which might have a price tag of £18 billion. How will the Government ensure that competition is maintained in this area of the nuclear sector? It is no good the Government sidestepping the key commercial issues that concern nuclear, while at the same time trumpeting their conceptual and economic benefits. Policy, as part of this Bill, needs to be created in a coherent and all-embracing way.

Alan Duncan: There are some important elements contained within the Bill—namely its few nuclear clauses and, indeed, its reform of the renewables obligation—but the Government delude themselves if they think that this is the best way to make energy policy. If the industry is to make the correct investment in the UK, securing us clean and reliable energy, and if consumers are to be protected from the volatility of the wholesale energy markets, we need much more aggressive action. The real absence of decisions over the last 10 years has placed us in a very precarious situation. The Bill must not be used as an excuse for further hesitation.